Dillards 53: Making Assumptions and Indoctrinating the Children

[singsingsing]

Just now, Bad Wolf said:

We don't know if Jesus was married. Most Jewish men of his age and time were. And if he was, and had sex, so what? Would you stop believing in him, Derick? Honestly, the man makes me crazy.

I always find the knee jerk reaction against the idea that Jesus could have been married really interesting, because to me it's so indicative of their issues with sex. They say that sex within marriage isn't sinful, but they obviously don't really believe it.  Otherwise, what would the issue with Jesus being married be? You can't really say it would be an issue because God can't marry humans - a human gave birth to God, and the church is supposed to be the bride of Christ. You can't really say that it's an issue because that would be elevating one human being to a special place, because Jesus's own mother was a human being, and he elevated specific followers. It's the same issue with Mary (though to be fair, protestants seem to have no issue with her having sex) - if sex within marriage isn't sinful, why would it matter if Mary had sex with her husband? It's so transparent.

Really, if anything, it would have made more theological sense for Jesus to have been married, because then future Christians could have had that as an example to emulate, being the bride of Christ and all.

[Fascinated]

I hope Derick reads here so that he may better understand critical thinking. Or just thinking, in general, maybe. 

[justoneoftwo]

Just now, singsingsing said:

I always find the knee jerk reaction against the idea that Jesus could have been married really interesting, because to me it's so indicative of their issues with sex. They say that sex within marriage isn't sinful, but they obviously don't really believe it.  Otherwise, what would the issue with Jesus being married be? You can't really say it would be an issue because God can't marry humans - a human gave birth to God, and the church is supposed to be the bride of Christ. You can't really say that it's an issue because that would be elevating one human being to a special place, because Jesus's own mother was a human being, and he elevated specific followers. It's the same issue with Mary (though to be fair, protestants seem to have no issue with her having sex) - if sex within marriage isn't sinful, why would it matter if Mary had sex with her husband? It's so transparent.

Really, if anything, it would have made more theological sense for Jesus to have been married, because then future Christians could have had that as an example to emulate, being the bride of Christ and all.

I imagine it has to do with the church being his bride.  If he loved the church as his bride he couldn't have loved a women right?  Also if he was married he should have had kids, and I imagine there is a problem with 1/2 or 1/4 gods walking around.  

[SamiKatz]

1 hour ago, Sky with diamonds said:

Plenty wrong with that dude. He reminds of internet trolls.

Maybe he HAS started to post here.  We seem to have had a few trolls lately, lol.

[SapphireSlytherin]

4 minutes ago, Fascinated said:

I hope Derick reads here so that he may better understand critical thinking. Or just thinking, in general, maybe. 

His head would explode. There is no way he could comprehend the logic that is presented here.

[EmmieJ]

1 hour ago, libgirl2 said:

I wanted to let you know if you are on FB, there is a group called Memory People. It was started with by a man with dementia. There are people from all over that post there, it can be a really good resource to get some help. 

Thank you!  I'll check it out

[Nargus]

2 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

I always find the knee jerk reaction against the idea that Jesus could have been married really interesting, because to me it's so indicative of their issues with sex. They say that sex within marriage isn't sinful, but they obviously don't really believe it.  Otherwise, what would the issue with Jesus being married be? You can't really say it would be an issue because God can't marry humans - a human gave birth to God, and the church is supposed to be the bride of Christ. You can't really say that it's an issue because that would be elevating one human being to a special place, because Jesus's own mother was a human being, and he elevated specific followers. It's the same issue with Mary (though to be fair, protestants seem to have no issue with her having sex) - if sex within marriage isn't sinful, why would it matter if Mary had sex with her husband? It's so transparent.

Really, if anything, it would have made more theological sense for Jesus to have been married, because then future Christians could have had that as an example to emulate, being the bride of Christ and all.

This kind of discussion always makes me think of the book "Born of a Woman" by John Shelby Spong.  I went through a phase with his books when I was in university.  

He has a whole chapter about 'What if Jesus were married?' and cites parts of the New Testament that would point towards that.  

[libgirl2]

7 minutes ago, EmmieJ said:

Thank you!  I'll check it out

It can be depressing at times but you won't feel so alone.

[singsingsing]

15 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

I imagine it has to do with the church being his bride.  If he loved the church as his bride he couldn't have loved a women right?  Also if he was married he should have had kids, and I imagine there is a problem with 1/2 or 1/4 gods walking around.  

They find ways to explain or justify everything else, I think it would've been pretty easy to justify Jesus being married. Admittedly, the kids aspect is a little tricky, because what kind of role would said kids play in the church/society/world? But just say he didn't have kids, then. It would have been easy to justify that, too. Just put a neat little theological spin on it and you're set.

10 minutes ago, Nargus said:

This kind of discussion always makes me think of the book "Born of a Woman" by John Shelby Spong.  I went through a phase with his books when I was in university.  

He has a whole chapter about 'What if Jesus were married?' and cites parts of the New Testament that would point towards that.  

I haven't read any of his books, but I've listened to a bunch of his talks, and I've always found what he has to say very interesting!

[Beermeet]

20 minutes ago, justoneoftwo said:

I imagine it has to do with the church being his bride.  If he loved the church as his bride he couldn't have loved a women right?  Also if he was married he should have had kids, and I imagine there is a problem with 1/2 or 1/4 gods walking around.  

This always bothered me.  I couldn't just shut up and be a good little Catholic with blind faith.   The fact of the matter is Mary was married.  More than likely consummated the marriage.  If not ,for whatever reason, and she wound up pregnant,  she'd be in a lot of trouble.  Like, killed.  

[Carm_88]

54 minutes ago, singsingsing said:

If Cathy starts defending Derick's virginity, I'm done.

I mean would it be the perfect time to say "A lot of assumptions are being made here..." 

[Sky with diamonds]

1 hour ago, singsingsing said:

If Cathy starts defending Derick's virginity, I'm done.

Who knows what she will defend of Derick's? 

31 minutes ago, Carm_88 said:

I mean would it be the perfect time to say "A lot of assumptions are being made here..." 

I think we can assume the very day/night Derick lost his virginity...his wedding was on TV. Actually even thinking about it 

1 hour ago, SamiKatz said:

Maybe he HAS started to post here.  We seem to have had a few trolls lately, lol.

If he has started to post here...Hey Derick smarten up!

[Kelsey]

1 hour ago, singsingsing said:

If Cathy starts defending Derick's virginity, I'm done.

Please let it happen Rufus

[BabyBottlePop]

I mean, I get that they're against premarital sex and I am in no way insinuating that being a virgin has anything to do with masculinity, but you have to admit there is this connotation between male virgin and loser. You would think fundies wouldn't want to parade male virginity around because it doesn't make them seem manly.  

[Cleopatra7]

1 hour ago, singsingsing said:

I always find the knee jerk reaction against the idea that Jesus could have been married really interesting, because to me it's so indicative of their issues with sex. They say that sex within marriage isn't sinful, but they obviously don't really believe it.  Otherwise, what would the issue with Jesus being married be? You can't really say it would be an issue because God can't marry humans - a human gave birth to God, and the church is supposed to be the bride of Christ. You can't really say that it's an issue because that would be elevating one human being to a special place, because Jesus's own mother was a human being, and he elevated specific followers. It's the same issue with Mary (though to be fair, protestants seem to have no issue with her having sex) - if sex within marriage isn't sinful, why would it matter if Mary had sex with her husband? It's so transparent.

Really, if anything, it would have made more theological sense for Jesus to have been married, because then future Christians could have had that as an example to emulate, being the bride of Christ and all.

The short answer is that Christian tradition decided Jesus was a celibate fully god/fully divine man after hammering it out over hundreds of years of arguments and numerous schisms and “heresies” over the issue:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology

To say the early church fathers had issues with sex would be a massive understandment and that has colored Christian thinking since antiquity. The most extreme was probably Jerome, who once said that the only good thing about marriage was that it produced more celibate saints (ie monks, priests, consecrated virgins) for the Church. Clement of Alexandria tried to have a more moderate position by outlining a Christian lifestyle for the devout lay householder, but even in his writings he insists that Christians should only have sex for procreation and anything else is a sin. This view had more to do with pre-Christian Stoicism than scripture, but this not so subtle disgust about anything to do with sex remains part of modern Christianity. If you want an in-depth study about early Christian attitudes towards sex and how this differed from pre-Christian beliefs on the subject, I recommend Peter Brown’s “The body and society: men, women, and renunciation in early Christianity”:

https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0231144075/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521246566&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=peter+brown+the+body+and+society&dpPl=1&dpID=41x6oyRiVNL&ref=plSrch

For early and medieval Christians, being a celibate monk or nun was the best thing one could be; being married was strictly for the masses on the spiritual b-term who couldn’t hack celibacy (this was the Catholic Church’s view until Vatican II). Even being a priest or bishop was considered lower than being a monk, since the former had to concern themselves with base secular affairs, whereas the latter could just pray all day in imitation of the angels. Before he became pope, Gregory VII wrote a document about reforming the Catholic hierarchy in which he insisted that priests and bishops should imitate the lifestyle of monks since Christ and his disciples were also monks. This idea sounds quizzical to modern readers, but it was unchallenged in Latin Christendom until the Reformation. 

Basically, Derick gets his idea about Jesus being a perpetual celibate not because it’s in the Bible, but because it’s a concept that has been floating around Eastern and Western Christianity for thousands of years. “Bible believers” like Derick won’t admit that many of their beliefs are based on tradition not Scriptual injunctions, but they are. What else is Gothardism or Southern Baptistism in the general sense but different sorts of traditions?

[artdecades]

We don't know if Jesus was a virgin but we do know that he and the bible never said anything about abortion so bringing him up in a conversation about abortion is just dumb.

[Nargus]

2 hours ago, singsingsing said:

I haven't read any of his books, but I've listened to a bunch of his talks, and I've always found what he has to say very interesting!

My 'Exploring the World's Religion' professor mentioned one of his books in passing, and I spied it in the clearance/bargain bin at one of my favorite book stores, so I grabbed it. I figured for $5, why not?  And then I ordered 3 more of his books on Amazon because I loved it.  Some of his books get a little repetitive, but they're easy and interesting reads.

[HarleyQuinn]

Dwreck's tweet sounds like something a 12 year old boy would say. 

[feministxtian]

20 minutes ago, HarleyQuinn said:

Dwreck's tweet sounds like something a 12 year old boy would say. 

And this surprises you because? Let's face it, homeboy isn't more than 12 intellectually or emotionally

 

[Jinder Roles]

To add to @Cleopatra7, sex is considered to be a desire of the flesh (worldly) Paul in his epistles states that it’s better to be celibate and dedicate one’s entire life to spiritual service. However if one could not do that (he admitted most could not) marriage and the responsibilities of it were thnot next best thing. Basically, early Christian Church was not pro-sex, cause it took away from important spiritual matters. 

I think many Christians get upset at the idea of Jesus and marriage/questioning virginity because it seems to the perfection of Jesus. Most Wesrern theology taught that he was completely God and man AKA he lived as a man but was not conformed to the ‘flesh’. Plus, the entire part about Church being Christ’s bride is extremely important in theology. Suggestion of marriage really messes that up. 

Seeing that no official doctrine that states Jesus was married, suggesting so can imply  Jesus was less godly and also brings up a whole lot of issues about lineage, desire and sin. 

Like it or not, Jesus is a sacred religious figure and the crux on an entire religion, so I find some of the discussion about sex and Jesus to be extremely distasteful because a) it’s pointless because it’s something we can literally never know. b] it’s not cool to mock a sacred religious figure (any religion)

 

edit it to say: I’m not talking specifically about comments on FJ but this discussion has come up for me a few times and some people are really disrespectful and rude.

edited again to say: wtf is D-wreck talking about? The calendar year is definitely not based on the life of Jesus. 

[ElToro]

On dementia. I partly work in supporting people living with dementia and their families, and I wanted to thank all the FJ posters for their insight and understanding of the disease.  The way we describe it is that the feelings from a conversation can remain even if the facts of the conversation have been forgotten- so impatient or unkind words, or repeated 'news' of the death of a loved one can be devastating.

On Derick. I really, really, REALLY, hope he does troll here... just so he can read the interesting information that FJers always bring. I'm a well-read, educated person and I love how much more I learn here- be it brain disease, Tudor history, Kardashians or theological history! 

[lizzybee]

I think Cathy defending/discussing Derick's virginity on twitter might qualify for my favorite thing that would hypothetically happen recently in Duggarland. So here's hoping she does, just for me. 

Current favorite thing is Jeremy repeatedly saying in a recent episode that Jinger is good at anything she puts her hands to. Is she now? 

[SorenaJ]

Does Derick think he is being right by being double wrong? 

Damn, his brain must be wired in such a weird way. 

[WiseGirl]

18 hours ago, libgirl2 said:

I wanted to let you know if you are on FB, there is a group called Memory People. It was started with by a man with dementia. There are people from all over that post there, it can be a really good resource to get some help. 

@libgirl2 There are also some good Alzheimer's and dementia caregivers support groups on FB. the caregivers have lots of good information and tips. Thanks for the tip about this group.

[Kittikatz]

I get that there are doctrinal reasons why some people like to think Jesus wasn't married, but given the culture he was living in, I don't see how he could have remained single for 30 years - in that era and place people were typically married as young teenagers, and in the event of death and divorce were expected or required to re-marry quickly (at least by modern standards). Marriages were normally arranged within clan groups, so it  was not uncommon for young people to be married to their cousins, or widows to be married to a brother or other close family member of her decreased husband's. 

Failure to conform to the social norms would have set that person and their family apart (in a bad way) and had a negative impact on their ability to move and function within that society, both in practical and social terms.

As for the issue of Jesus' children, I could see that getting esp fraught for the early church - they wouldnt have wanted Gods in flesh coming out of the woodwork at them and disrupting their beliefs and power structure. 

Here's some superficial background on Jewish marriages around the time of the early common era.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/ancient-jewish-marriage/